Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Turley


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. , if you don't have a copy of this saved, please let me know by emailing me or posting to my talk page and I can email it to you. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Turley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

routine coverage in  local genealogical sources only, and unreliable local histories  DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Some information on Turley's activities may rightfully find a place on the page on the history of Lamine Township, Missouri. However he is not notable otherwise, and Wikipedia is not the place to publish a summary of the information you have found in doing Family History research. There is a reason I put off creating the article on Ward Eaton Pack and that I help off on digging up every source I could find using my mom's family history collection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for your thoughtful review. H B Lammers 23:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is clearly a well researched and interesting article, but belongs in a family history magazine or such like, but non-encylopaedic. I see no achievemetn that was notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for your kind remarks and thoughtful review.H B Lammers 23:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.